 ... judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.  Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York - Page 25by New York (State). Court of Appeals, George Franklin Comstock, Henry Rogers Selden, Francis Kernan, Erasmus Peshine Smith, Joel Tiffany, Samuel Hand, Edward Jordan Dimock, Hiram Edward Sickels, Edmund Hamilton Smith, Louis J. Rezzemini, Edwin Augustus Bedell, Alvah S. Newcomb, James Newton Fiero - 1879Full view - About this book
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1869 - 802 pages
...respect to them, no such limitation exists with respect to judges of superior or general authority. They are not liable to civil actions for their judicial...when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, unless perhaps where the acts, in excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly. This doctrine... | |
 | 1890 - 542 pages
...the Supreme Court in the case of BrmUey v. Flsher, 13 Wall. 335, is that "judges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable...jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." The principle on which such exemption is founded nnd maintained rests in public policy,... | |
 | 1875 - 438 pages
...that, as a general rule, judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction, acting under color of jurisdiction, are not liable to civil actions for...jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. But they draw a distinction between excess of jurisdiction and the absence of jurisdiction... | |
 | 1880 - 554 pages
...Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, it is held that judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are uotr liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even...jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly ; and a distinction is made between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of jurisdiction... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1870 - 800 pages
...them, no such limitation exists with respect to judges of superior or general authority. They are uot liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even...when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, unless perhaps where the acts, in excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly. This doctrine... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1872 - 1546 pages
...qualifying words used were not necessary to a correct statement of the law, and that judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable...jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence... | |
 | Charles Greenstreet Addison - 1876 - 762 pages
...Heisk. (Tenn.) 197. In Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 33r>, it was held that judges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction, are not liable to civil actions for not answerable for slander spoken by him in the exercise of his judicial functions in reference to... | |
 | United States. Circuit Court (2nd Circuit) - 1877 - 648 pages
...commissions, for the manner in which they discharge the great trusts of their office." " Judges of Courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable...jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." The Circuit Courts of the United States are Courts of record, and have general jurisdiction... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1877 - 882 pages
...335, it was held that nidges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction are not '•il'le to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in Fausler v. Parsons. excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1878 - 864 pages
...Freeman, 2 Ir. CLR 460. Judges of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable in civil notions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, »nd are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly. BratUty v. Fii 13 Wall. 335, 351. But... | |
| |
